1. The datasets used show approximately 50 law enforcment killings per year, while there are approximately 1000 law enforcement killings of citizens per year. This entire post is claiming that police killings have some relationship to police danger but we see they kill people (@ 50% unarmed) at a ratio of @ 20 to each one of their own being killed. So if there was any value to the supposed relationship, it would make cops worse than serial killers. Killing nineteen "innocents" for every one "reasonable" killing.
2. We need to look at police shootings not just police killings to see if the averages are different. If anyone shoots a cop, they will be certainly charged with attempted homicide, why should the police unsuccesful attempts not be part of the any total police shootings in calculating disparate police actions?
Finally, someone out there is putting out the data I've been promoting for years. This is such necessary work. Feel free to reach out to me sometime, or maybe I should just get on Substack. Medium is a grind. I just put out my frist piece in 11 months.
And in terms of splitting hairs on "white" and "Hispanic white," etc. I went down the rabbit hole myself. Isn't it crazy how often media can't even figure out that often "white" groups two groups together?
The ferguson effect is simply evidence the police are in the standard mafia protection racket. "Oh we don't have total and complete imminuty to murder at will? Fine we'll let every criminal in the city they have carte blanche to do anything in black neighborhoods until people give us what we want".
I appreciate you showing your work in detail in the extended entry. I wonder:
If you removed certain cities (such as Chicago, NYC, Atlanta, ?) from the national statistics, would the remaining numbers show even less evidence of "disproportionate" impact or bias? In other words, could one or two large cities' police statistics skew the overall results even further?
I ask this not because I want you to make more calculations. I don't.
All these deaths are tragic but my thought is that since the number of deaths is small compared to how many police interactions occur, then problems in one or two cities might have a *disproportionate* impact on the overall statistics.
"Wouldn’t it make more sense to ask what percentage of the population that poses a deadly threat to police is black or Hispanic?"
I doubt BLM supporters would accept we can identify "what percentage of the population ... poses a deadly threat to police." IMO their view is that all people pose equal threats.
Granted, but that is why groups like this couple their beliefs with profound distrust of institutions and "truth." It is the same as Trump supporters' distrust of election mechanisms and results. They all "know" the system is rigged.
I think many Americans still believe in evidence and truth, and are open to convincing and informed information like this post. A decade ago, I would have said most Americans believe in evidence and truth but no more. Liberal revisionism and Trump populism has infected our society.
When what we believe is discredited, the logical response is to reconsider the evidence and replace it with a better belief. My parents did this all the time because they understood knowledge is not fixed but is constantly evolving.
Unfortunately, that is not how all people react to change. The Covid lab leak story is a good example:
What will happen of course, is that we will have police reforms, where police are especially cautious about deadly force with Blacks or Hispanics. The inevitable conclusion will be that police deaths at the hands of those groups will rise to be significantly higher than police killings of people in those same groups. This will be called progress.
Actaully what will and is happening is that the police are in the standard mafia protection racket. "Oh we don't have total and complete imminuty to murder at will? Fine we'll let every criminal in the city they have carte blanche to do anything in black neighborhoods until people give us what we want".
The argument that some might make here is that police have different expectations in different situations. LAPD in Brentwood are not quite as head-on-a-swivel as they are in Lynwood. So I played a bit with the hypothesis (rough equality of cop killers and those killed by cops). A thought experiment that, I think, makes the case a bit better.
First, assume that if the police were a little bit more on their toes while interacting with category X,, you would have fewer cops killed by category X and more category X shot by police (presumably some erstwhile cop killers). And the converse is also true -- less on-the-ball police when dealing with a given group, might be killed at a greater rate, while killing fewer.
If their attentiveness and/or readiness to shoot differed among groups, you would find that different postures resulting in skewing of the numbers.
The only case where these statistics might remain even is if they were as attentive, and reacted more-or-less equally, with all groups. That way, even if fewer (or more) police are killed, and if more (or fewer) civilians are killed, the group statistics would rise and fall in lockstep.
Multiple issues with this hypothesis:
1. The datasets used show approximately 50 law enforcment killings per year, while there are approximately 1000 law enforcement killings of citizens per year. This entire post is claiming that police killings have some relationship to police danger but we see they kill people (@ 50% unarmed) at a ratio of @ 20 to each one of their own being killed. So if there was any value to the supposed relationship, it would make cops worse than serial killers. Killing nineteen "innocents" for every one "reasonable" killing.
2. We need to look at police shootings not just police killings to see if the averages are different. If anyone shoots a cop, they will be certainly charged with attempted homicide, why should the police unsuccesful attempts not be part of the any total police shootings in calculating disparate police actions?
Came here from Zac Kriegman's article:
https://www.commonsense.news/p/i-criticized-blm-then-i-was-fired?s=r
Finally, someone out there is putting out the data I've been promoting for years. This is such necessary work. Feel free to reach out to me sometime, or maybe I should just get on Substack. Medium is a grind. I just put out my frist piece in 11 months.
https://agent-orange-chicago.medium.com/evidence-of-a-ferguson-effect-costing-thousands-of-ameican-lives-349f606faf94
And in terms of splitting hairs on "white" and "Hispanic white," etc. I went down the rabbit hole myself. Isn't it crazy how often media can't even figure out that often "white" groups two groups together?
https://agent-orange-chicago.medium.com/go-to-the-fbi-data-below-and-look-at-violent-crime-and-murders-c0b40f58e7b3
My first piece mentioning how blacks are 5 times more likely than whites to kill police. Which remarkably was only said ONCE by the Washington Post:
https://agent-orange-chicago.medium.com/the-washington-post-totals-on-police-killings-again-eliminate-the-laws-of-probability-in-a-land-of-5d5775b060a9
EXCERPT:
Maybe The Washington Post can also use their own data and give relevant context:
• 93% of victims were armed (9% unarmed in 2015, 5% unarmed in 2016, 7% unarmed in 2017)
• Black males are under 1/3 of unarmed people killed (19 of 68 in 2017)
• From 2004–2013, 43% of police were killed by someone black, according to The Washington Post’s research in 2015.
Thus, the 25% killed by police that are black (approximately 3% black female) might actually be construed as lower than expected.
I'd spew more, but gotta keep things tight. But again, feel free to reach out. Email: organica.design(at)gmail.com
The ferguson effect is simply evidence the police are in the standard mafia protection racket. "Oh we don't have total and complete imminuty to murder at will? Fine we'll let every criminal in the city they have carte blanche to do anything in black neighborhoods until people give us what we want".
I appreciate you showing your work in detail in the extended entry. I wonder:
If you removed certain cities (such as Chicago, NYC, Atlanta, ?) from the national statistics, would the remaining numbers show even less evidence of "disproportionate" impact or bias? In other words, could one or two large cities' police statistics skew the overall results even further?
I ask this not because I want you to make more calculations. I don't.
All these deaths are tragic but my thought is that since the number of deaths is small compared to how many police interactions occur, then problems in one or two cities might have a *disproportionate* impact on the overall statistics.
"Remarkable, isn’t it?"
Absolutely. This is an excellent post.
"Wouldn’t it make more sense to ask what percentage of the population that poses a deadly threat to police is black or Hispanic?"
I doubt BLM supporters would accept we can identify "what percentage of the population ... poses a deadly threat to police." IMO their view is that all people pose equal threats.
I’m sure that is their view. However, it’s not what the data show.
Granted, but that is why groups like this couple their beliefs with profound distrust of institutions and "truth." It is the same as Trump supporters' distrust of election mechanisms and results. They all "know" the system is rigged.
I think many Americans still believe in evidence and truth, and are open to convincing and informed information like this post. A decade ago, I would have said most Americans believe in evidence and truth but no more. Liberal revisionism and Trump populism has infected our society.
When what we believe is discredited, the logical response is to reconsider the evidence and replace it with a better belief. My parents did this all the time because they understood knowledge is not fixed but is constantly evolving.
Unfortunately, that is not how all people react to change. The Covid lab leak story is a good example:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wuhan-lab-leak-hypothesis-true-102749505.html
This will take some time to read and understand fully.
What will happen of course, is that we will have police reforms, where police are especially cautious about deadly force with Blacks or Hispanics. The inevitable conclusion will be that police deaths at the hands of those groups will rise to be significantly higher than police killings of people in those same groups. This will be called progress.
Actaully what will and is happening is that the police are in the standard mafia protection racket. "Oh we don't have total and complete imminuty to murder at will? Fine we'll let every criminal in the city they have carte blanche to do anything in black neighborhoods until people give us what we want".
If the result is more caution in use of force I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
The argument that some might make here is that police have different expectations in different situations. LAPD in Brentwood are not quite as head-on-a-swivel as they are in Lynwood. So I played a bit with the hypothesis (rough equality of cop killers and those killed by cops). A thought experiment that, I think, makes the case a bit better.
First, assume that if the police were a little bit more on their toes while interacting with category X,, you would have fewer cops killed by category X and more category X shot by police (presumably some erstwhile cop killers). And the converse is also true -- less on-the-ball police when dealing with a given group, might be killed at a greater rate, while killing fewer.
If their attentiveness and/or readiness to shoot differed among groups, you would find that different postures resulting in skewing of the numbers.
The only case where these statistics might remain even is if they were as attentive, and reacted more-or-less equally, with all groups. That way, even if fewer (or more) police are killed, and if more (or fewer) civilians are killed, the group statistics would rise and fall in lockstep.